Big surprise. Anyone want to concede?
Anyone? Or are the cops all thugs and this a big coverup?
Hello? Is this thing working?
Anyone? Or are the cops all thugs and this a big coverup?
Hello? Is this thing working?
So it appears Michael Brown was not an innocent teenager gunned down by the police.
- Thread starter Retired_Can_Soldier
- Start date
Sure, I'll concede. Cops killing unarmed non-whites is a good thing. Coz non-whites are bad. Their explanations should be taken at face value and never, ever questioned.
The only remaining question is whether this rule should apply to whites as well. But that's a subject for another day. For now, let us celebrate the death of Michael Brown and encourage Officer Wilson and his comrades to kill many, many more unarmed teenagers.
And always remember, "He reached for his waistband."
So you still think this was an execution eh? Wow!
I'll give you this bones, at least you showed up.
Last edited:
No, I think it should be investigated, and possibly prosecuted, as an unjustified police shooting.
I have explained this several times. Whether or not Officer Wilson was justified depends on what was going on at the time that he fired. It has nothing to do with Michael Brown's general character, tox screen, or actions earlier in the day, or even a few seconds earlier if there has been a clear break between that and the time Officer Wilson fired.
You have consistently focussed on Michael Brown's character. Because you refuse to say what your standard is, preferring to tell me what I think, I can only presume from what you post that you think it's justified for cops to shoot people if those people can be accused of bad character after the fact. It's called the "He needed killin', Judge" standard. It's a bit out of fashion in law these days, but you clearly believe in it, because, I reiterate, you continually focus on Michael Brown's character. Obviously you think that's the most important aspect of the case.
So, yeah, by your standards Michael Brown deserved to die. That's why I suggested we celebrate his shooting.
Near as I can tell, that's what you want.
Bang-on... Why, it's common knowledge that the proof in Brown's innocence was determined by the weeks of rioting by the public at large and as we all know, that is proof-positive.
I hope that the State doesn't waste any time and money on a trial for the KKK policeman and just take a few minutes to find a suitable hanging tree.
On that note, it's common knowledge that all white cops (every whitey in fact) are card carrying members of the Klan.
... Looks like we're gonna have to plant a bunch more trees
We all know that there is no discrimination against whites... No need for a rule
All a big misunderstanding... Brown was reaching for a bandage to apply tender assistance to the cop that accidentally fell down a bunch of times and got bloodied... Clumsy bastard.
That's a tremendous oversimplification. Statistically blacks are 50 times more likely to attack non blacks as the other way around. Another way to look at it is blacks make up 10 percent of the population and 85 percent of the violent crime.
Having said that, black or white, bottom line is if you don't want to wind up dead don't physically attack a police officer and try to take his weapon. Had Brown been successful then it would just be another dead white cop.
Statistically speaking again, roughly 150 police are killed each year while police kill roughly 400 people per year. The vast majority of those killed by police are white. Given that blacks account for 85% of violent crime but police kill mostly nonblacks from the 15% group theoretically the reverse of what you allege appears to be the actual truth.
Last edited:
It has been investigated.
The misrepresentation of his character by the media is just one nuance. I have consistently focused on the forensic evidence. This is about facts, about eyewitness testimony and forensic findings. Let's take a look at this.
Wilson said, Wilson tried to get out of his car – Brown shut the door on him, then pushed himself through the driver’s side window. He went for Wilson’s weapon, whereupon Wilson fired the gun in the vehicle. Brown ran. Wilson chased him. Brown then turned around and ran toward Wilson, whereupon Wilson shot him several times.
According to the Washington Post, “more than a half-dozen unnamed black witnesses have provided testimony…that supports Wilson’s account of the events….blood spatter analysis, shell casings and ballistics tests – also support Wilson’s account of the shooting, the Post sources said.”
Brown’s body had a “graze wound” on his thumb; the wound contained matter “consistent with products that are discharged from the barrel of a firearm.” That can only happen at close range – so close, in fact, that there was no stippling – a patterning of gunpowder that will not appear within an inch of the gun barrel. In other words, as San Francisco medical examiner Dr. Judy Melinek said, “this guy is reaching for the gun.”
Acting shrill and denying the obvious is hardly an argument.
I would check your statistics, but I know off the top of my head that your stat on the percentage of the population that's black is 25% off, so I'll just assume your other stats are equally flawed.
I'd check it out, but your reasoning is utter crap anyway. Let me explain the law to you. It deals with individuals in situations. Not with statistics, not with what group does this or that. What transpired between Officer Wilson and Michael Brown is the only relevant information, not skin colour, not tox screen, not what happened at some other time in some other place.
If Officer Wilson reasonably believed that Michael Brown presented a threat of imminent death or serious bodily harm to Officer Wilson or another person, he was justified in using deadly force. If Officer Wilson did not have a reasonable belief that Michael Brown presented a threat of imminent death or serious bodily harm to Officer Wilson or another person, he was not justified in using deadly force.
That is the only relevant factor.
I would not, however, desire to deprive you of your opinion, so you go right ahead on and believe whatever pleases you.
Character-assassinating a dead kid is hardly an argument, but that don't stop you.
... But overzealous character assassination and egregious speculation condemning Wilson is A-OK?
Points for cherry picking, but avoidance of the other facts presented is pretty lazy.
Who is doing either of those in this thread? Lemme at 'em! I'll moiderize da punks!
Ah, so your point is that it is not legitimate for me to address the character assassination of Michael Brown in this thread unless I, in the same post presumably, also address everything everybody else is saying.
Hmm. . . effective tactic, if I bought it. But I don't, so nice try.
Be sure to ignore the fact that Officer Wilson will have the full advantage of an investigation, and if he is disciplined or prosecuted, an undoubtedly able defence team to argue his case for him.
Michael Brown won't.
If Officer Wilson was found guilty I would concede that it was an unjustified shooting.
Michael Brown getting killed doesn't default him to victim just because he was killed and btw he has lots of representation.
You are addressing the character assassination of Brown via assassinating the character of Wilson, the Police force and an entire demographic.
I am simply applying your logic in offering an alternate perspective. I see that you question the value in supporting Officer Wilson by virtue of questioning Brown's character, but others should meekly concede that your speculative assassination on Wilson (the Police and society) is the basis for Brown's innocence and absolute fact?
Nice try all the same
If Wilson is deemed justified, it is an advantage to Wilson and Brown suffered the consequences of his own actions... If guilty, it's no advantage to either.
Well by that standard we should just incarcerate everyone accused of murder without due process because their alleged victims are dead. Piss on the forensic evidence, the eye witness testimony, they are dead after all and the mob demands they be held accountable whether they are innocent or justified.
Presumption of innocence just a cliche down there?
What the f*ck are you talking about? By what standard? I've articulated one standard, and that's the legal standard for deadly force.
I've said this before, but it apparently didn't get through, so I'll try again. When you make up sh*t in your head, attribute it to me, then argue against it, you're basically talking to yourself. And you can sit in the corner and do that. No need for an expensive computer and power.
Y'all have a real fine day now, hear?
You cherry pick one thing from what I posted and ignore everything else. I asked you about the forensic evidence and the cooberating witness testimony that backs up Wilson's claim. You retort with I concede that cops can shoot blacks. Good grief man you practice (d) law?
I don't practice law here. If I did, I'd have to charge you.
Michael Brown is dead. That means nobody's representing him, nobody's talking to him, nobody has nothing to do with him at all.
Because dead people got nothing. No justice, no vengeance, no compensation, no chance to tell their story, no future, no nothing.
It doesn't matter to Michael Brown if Officer Wilson is exonerated, disciplined, convicted, or anything else.
That's the difference between Brown and Wilson. Wilson's future is uncertain, and make go in any of several directions based on any number of factors.
Michael Brown has no future, and nothing will change that. So hate him as much as you like, defame him as much as you like, don't matter. He's past caring.